Assume two nuclear armed countries (say the US and the Soviet Union(USSR)) are locked in a geopolitical competition of high stakes that can bedescribed using a Prisoners Dilemma Game. In particular assume that if bothcountries choose peace, payoffs are +10. If both choose war pay-offs are -30.If one choose peace and the other war (ie a surprise attack), then the peacefulnation has a pay-off of -50 and the attacker a pay-off of +20.A. Solve for the Nash Equilibrium of this game.B. Now assume that the two countries have a second-strike capacity thatis they retain the ability to retaliate after a surprise attack and inflict seriousdamage on the opponent. Such a second-strike capacity might be because thecountry possesses a large enough nuclear arsenal including a bomber fleet andnuclear submarines.-Show how to adapt the game of deterrence to account for this second strikecapacity. What has to be true for the payoffs of both countries following thesecond strike so as to ensure that there is no nuclear war in the first place?

There are two players in the game : USSR & US Strategy set of US = Strategy Set of USSR = {…

Assume two nuclear armed countries (say the US and the Soviet Union (USSR)) are locked in a geopolitical competition of high stakes that can be described using a Prisoners Dilemma Game. In particular assume that if both countries choose peace, payoffs are +10. If both choose war pay-offs are -30. If one choose peace and the other war (ie a surprise attack), then the peaceful nation has a pay-off of -50 and the attacker a pay-off of +20. A. Solve for the Nash Equilibrium of this game.

Assume two nuclear armed countries (say the US and the Soviet Union (USSR)) are locked in a geopolitical competition of high stakes that can be described using a Prisoners Dilemma Game. In particular assume that if both countries choose peace, payoffs are +10. If both choose war pay-offs are -30. If one choose peace and the other war (ie a surprise attack), then the peaceful nation has a pay-off of -50 and the attacker a pay-off of +20. A. Solve for the Nash Equilibrium of this game.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Consider the two-round bargaining game. The minimum the seller will sell his home for 188,000 and the maximum the buyer is willing to pay is $200,000. Both players know these two amounts and are bargaining over the difference (M=$1200). Assume the disagreement values are zero for both players. Player 1 moves first by making a proposal and Player 2 can accept and reject. If player 2 rejects Player’s 1 proposal, then Player 2 gets to make a proposal, which Player 1 can reject and accept. The game is then over. Suppose the both players discount the future income at the rate d=0.2 per period. That is, $0.20 now is equivalent to $1,00 received next round. Find the equilibrium for this 2-round game. a) Draw the game tree b) What is the sale price of home? c)Which player gets the larger share of M?
Table 9-03. Suppose you are a general in the army. Your country is at war. You are trying to invade the enemy. You can attack on the enemys east coast or the west coast. The enemy has only enough troops to defend one coast. The payoff matrix below represents whether you or the enemy wins (represented by 1) or loses (represented by 0). Enemy Defend east coast Defend west coast Enemy: 1 Enemy: 0 Attack east coast You: 0 You: 1 You Enemy: 0 Enemy: 1 Attack west coast You: 1 You: 0 Refer to Table 9-03. To win the war, O a. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the east coast. O b. you must attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or the west coast is irrelevant to you. c. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the west coast. d. you must never attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or…
Answer to the image?
In the collusion game, collusion was only sustainable in the infinite horizon repeated game. One Nash Equilibrium of that game can be found when all players play a “grim trigger” strategy, where they collude until an opponent chooses to compete, and then compete for all future rounds as a punishment. In such a game, if the one period bonus that comes from competing is low enough, firms always collude and the punishment is never triggered. Is the punishment (vowing to compete forever after one deviates) realistic, especially if firms can communicate freely? Why or why not? (Hint: Is a grim trigger Nash Equilibrium a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium? What kinds of Nash Equilibria does Subgame erfection rule out in sequential games?)
the Consider a simultaneous-move integer game between two players: Marilyn and Noah. Each of player is required to announce a positive integer between 1 to 4. In other words, a player can announce 1, 2, 3, or 4. Two players announce their integers simultaneously. Notice that this game is different from the games we learned in class in that each player has four actions to take. The payoffs of the players in the game are specified as follows: (1) when the two announced integers are different, whoever reports the lower number pays $1 to the other player, so that the loser of the game has payoff -1 and the winner of the game has payoff 1; (2) when the two players announce the same integer, their payoffs are both O. What is Marilyn's maximin strategy? 01 02 03 O
John and Paul are walking in the woods one day when suddenly an angry bear emerges from the underbrush. They each can do one of two things: run away or stand and fight. If one of them runs away and the other fights, then the one who ran will get away unharmed (payoff of 0) while the one who fights will be killed (payoff -200). If they both run, then the bear will chase down one of them and eat them to death but the other one will get away unharmed. Assuming they don't know which one will escape we will call this a payoff of -100 for both. If they BOTH fight, then they will successfully drive off the bear but they may be injured in the process (payoff -20). Construct a payoff matrix for this game and identify the pure strategy Nash equilibrium. (Indicate it with words not with a circle!)
Consider a simultaneous move game with two players. Player 1 has three possible actions (A, B, or C) and Player 2 has two possible actions (D or E.) In the payoff matrix below, each cell contains the payoff for Player 1 followed by the payoff for Player 2. Identify any dominated strategies in this game. If there are none, state this clearly.
Consider the following static, single-shot game played between two cyclists, Chico and Loco, who find themselves riding towards each other down a narrow lane. Chico wants to pass by safely, and he can only do this by cycling on the opposite side of the lane to Loco. So, he has two options: to cycle on the Right of the lane, or to cycle on the Left. Loco meanwhile is having a bad day and wants to crash into Chico, and the way he can achieve this is by cycling on the same side of the lane as Chico. So again, he has two options: to cycle on the Right of the lane, or to cycle on the Left. He does not care at all about hurting himself if they collide. (c) By constructing the best response lines of both players, identify all Nash equilibrium outcomes in the above game i.e., in pure and mixed strategies. (d) Provide an intuitive interpretation of the equilibrium outcome(s) identified in part (c) above.
Speedy Bike's Advertising Power Bike's Advertising Budget Large Budget Small Large Small A $20 B $18 $20 с $35 $18 $35 D $25 $25 Refer to the payoff matrix. Suppose that Speedy Bike and Power Bike are the only two bicycle manufacturing firms serving the market. Both can choose large or small advertising budgets. If this is a one-time, simultaneous game, which cell represents the final outcome we would expect to occur?
Consider the following 3-player static game with row player Batman (his choices are a and b), column player Catwoman (her choices are c and d), and matrix player Joker (his choices are left, middle and right). In the payoff triples the first entry is Batman's payoff, the second entry is Catwoman's payoff, and the third entry is Joker's payoff. left middle right d d d a 1,1,5 1,0,1 a 1,1,3 1,0,0 a 1,1,0 1,0,0 0,0,0 0,1,0 0,0,0 0,1,3 b 0,0,0 0,1,5 (a) Give a belief for Joker about his opponents' choice combinations that supports his choice of middle (i.e. such that middle is optimal for him). (b) Solve the game with iterated strict dominance. (c) Construct an epistemic model such that, for every choice found in (b) there exists a type such that: • the choice is optimal for the type, • and the type expresses common belief in rationality.